4 ms·

Since it’s from 2021, does anybody has a follow-up on this? What happened to the researchers? Did something changed in the patch process to limit these attempts

Since it’s from 2021, does anybody has a follow-up on this? What happened to the researchers? Did something changed in the patch process to limit these attempts?

dharmab 3y ago
Linux Foundation TAB report: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/ - bottom of the report made a recommendation each for UMN and the TAB UMN statement: https://cse.umn.edu/cs/statement-computer-science-engineering-confirming-linux-technical-advisory-board-findings-may-9 https://cse.umn.edu/cs/statement-computer-science-engineerin...
dwheeler 3y ago
Here's the letter from the Linux Foundation: https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-linux-foundations-demands-to-the-university-of-minnesota-for-its-bad-linux-patches/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-linux-foundations-demands-... Full disclosure: it is from Mike Dolan, but I wrote a substantial part of it. Yes, things did change. 1. UMN got pull on a "ban" list which means someone else has to review their proposals before they will be considered by the kernel community. The purpose is not to punish, but rehabilitate. So hopefully they'll get off the list (they may have already done so, I haven't checked recently). 2. The Linux Foundation and UMN had a formal meeting. The goal wasn't to hurt UMN, just to prevent recurrence. UMN agreed to ensure all CS faculty got training on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including the rules on experiments involving humans. 3. The Linux kernel now has a much clearer statement about research, here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/researcher-guidelines.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/researcher-gu... Again, the goal was focused on resolving any issues and preventing recurrence. I don't know of any recurrence, so I think we can count these changes as a success.

Since it’s from 2021, does anybody has a follow-up on this? What happened to the researchers? Did something changed in the patch process to limit these attempts?

dharmab 3y ago

Linux Foundation TAB report: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/ - bottom of the report made a recommendation each for UMN and the TAB UMN statement: https://cse.umn.edu/cs/statement-computer-science-engineering-confirming-linux-technical-advisory-board-findings-may-9 https://cse.umn.edu/cs/statement-computer-science-engineerin...

dwheeler 3y ago

Here's the letter from the Linux Foundation: https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-linux-foundations-demands-to-the-university-of-minnesota-for-its-bad-linux-patches/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-linux-foundations-demands-... Full disclosure: it is from Mike Dolan, but I wrote a substantial part of it. Yes, things did change. 1. UMN got pull on a "ban" list which means someone else has to review their proposals before they will be considered by the kernel community. The purpose is not to punish, but rehabilitate. So hopefully they'll get off the list (they may have already done so, I haven't checked recently). 2. The Linux Foundation and UMN had a formal meeting. The goal wasn't to hurt UMN, just to prevent recurrence. UMN agreed to ensure all CS faculty got training on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including the rules on experiments involving humans. 3. The Linux kernel now has a much clearer statement about research, here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/researcher-guidelines.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/researcher-gu... Again, the goal was focused on resolving any issues and preventing recurrence. I don't know of any recurrence, so I think we can count these changes as a success.